Pages:
Author

Topic: Consciousness and Quantum Physics (Read 11994 times)

sr. member
Activity: 433
Merit: 260
December 05, 2014, 09:42:17 AM
#91
Thanks Btcusury, I think Dr Rupert Sheldrake's thesis on morphic resonance is most refreshing, he correctly points out that science suffers from self created the dogmas such as the constants; specifically gravity and the speed of light. He has taken the trouble to verify that they are in fact not actually constant but vary. Since they have been around for as long as we can tell they may just be the most evolved and therefore most stable phenomena and could be evolving all be it at a more stable pace due to their age and prevalence.

10 Dogmas of Science https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ni4_6YJPM8

Sheldrake is a pioneer in every sense of the word. To my mind, the morphogenetic field, whose vibrational resonance provides form, is of a frequency slightly higher than that which can be detected by current scientific instruments; what some are calling "higher 3rd density". Quantum theory, which is fundamentally probabilistic, has nothing to say about what it is that selects probabilities, but due to the limitations of the instrumentation of empiricism, is stuck within artificial parameters carried over from Newtonian mechanics, and thus dogmatically rejects Sheldrake's ideas (despite being to some extent testable/falsifiable), which would help explain why certain events (probabilities) "undergo the formality of actually occurring".

Listen to this: Terence Mckenna heckled about science, maths, probability theory and Kurt Gödel
sr. member
Activity: 444
Merit: 260
December 04, 2014, 02:21:40 PM
#90


Nothing ->Energy -> mater -> atoms -> molecules -> amino acids -> proteins -> single cellular life -> multi cellular life -> individual consciousness -> collective consciousness

I'd change that to:

Existence (The One) -> Consciousness (All That Is) -> Energy (lower density of vibrational frequency) -> matter (highly crystallized density, vibration so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses).



Thanks Btcusury, I think Dr Rupert Sheldrake's thesis on morphic resonance is most refreshing, he correctly points out that science suffers from self created the dogmas such as the constants; specifically gravity and the speed of light. He has taken the trouble to verify that they are in fact not actually constant but vary. Since they have been around for as long as we can tell they may just be the most evolved and therefore most stable phenomena and could be evolving all be it at a more stable pace due to their age and prevalence.

10 Dogmas of Science https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ni4_6YJPM8
sr. member
Activity: 433
Merit: 260
December 04, 2014, 11:36:49 AM
#89
A point is the "zero-th" dimension. It has nothing except existence... no size or anything else.

A straight line is the first dimension. It has an infinite number of points, but it could be a single point stretched out.

A plane is the second dimension. It is made up of any number of lines that are one point thick, but it could be a single point stretched out in two directions.

Space is the third dimension. It is any number (infinite) of planes sitting one on top of another. But it could be one point stretched out in 3 directions.

Just like the 1-dimensional line made up of 0-dimensional points, the 2nd dimension can be thought of as a plane of 1-dimensional lines parallel to each other. If each point is thought of as separated by the planck length, then you have an atomic dimensional framework.

It's useful to think of each dimension as being "at right angles" (orthogonal) to the dimension below...

Nothing ->Energy -> mater -> atoms -> molecules -> amino acids -> proteins -> single cellular life -> multi cellular life -> individual consciousness -> collective consciousness

I'd change that to:

Existence (The One) -> Consciousness (All That Is) -> Energy (lower density of vibrational frequency) -> matter (highly crystallized density, vibration so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses).

sr. member
Activity: 444
Merit: 260
December 04, 2014, 12:55:34 AM
#88
The Duality of Nature

A brilliant mind shared this wisdom, ``Universe is the aggregate of all humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated non simultaneous and only partially overlapping experiences. `` - Buckminster Fuller

He also goes on to described how all humans are born helpless naked, ignorant and without any instructions. Equipped merely with some built in cravings and emotions. We have developed language and been able to observe patterns that have given us insights into the workings of the universe and the realisation of our living home, the third planet from our sun star; in the Milky Way, a barred spiral galaxy 100,000–120,000 light-years in diameter containing 100–400 billion stars. Containing at least as many planets……….

When you unpack this simple yet comprehensive statement the importance of the word “aggregate” becomes apparent. It’s significant because the universe is determined by what the majority “consciously apprehended and communicated”. This is also the basis of all humanities power struggle from the moment we learned to communicate. Simply put, he who can control the conscious apprehension of those around him is the master of his universe. The keys to power lie in the ability to control communication and must therefore be defended at all costs.

IMHO, Science is the set of tools we have devised to try and define that which is common about our experiences with the absence of emotion.

Art is the creative means by which we skilfully manipulate the five scenes of others to evoke shared emotions.

Magic is the ability to induce desired emotional responses in others using art, with the combination of ritual to make the results are more profound and compelling. All organised religion is based on magic.

White Magic appeals to empathy and the interests of all.
Black Magic appeals to the selfish interests of a few at the expense of others.

As no two people can occupy the same time and space our individual perspectives are unique and therefore so too are our egos. Ego is the envelope of self-awareness that separates us from the conscious ether; empathy is our umbilical cord through which we can raise our awareness; bring us closer to the collective reality.  Once we accept this and the sovereign rights of others to have their own perspective of the universe we can find common meaning and peace. IMO there are only two rules to live by: -
1) The mutual right of all humans to hold a unique perspective of the universe, this is the fundamental mystery of life.
2) When contemplating any action or position, first ask ourselves if every other human did the same thing would the world we share be better off or worse for it.    

Homers man who escapes the cave of light and shadows, is killed upon his return for his inability to share the wonders of the world outside; he has no common language reference to communicate the experience or to influence the others aggregate apprehension. The fellow troglodytes’ lack of empathy for his right to hold a unique perspective of the universe sadly is not only the result of his death but also diminished quality of their own existence.

My comments are made in the context of the human perspective, that said all matter and life have a unique positions in time and space thus hold unique perspectives. It is most likely given the vast number of galaxies stars and planets that there are not just multiple fractal expressions of life permeating the universe, but consciences as well.

IMO there are only two fundamental metaphysical forces driving our Universe, Entropy that Devolves Mater and Consciousness that Evolves Life. If we then plot evolution on a linear scale I see the following: -

Nothing ->Energy -> mater -> atoms -> molecules -> amino acids -> proteins -> single cellular life -> multi cellular life -> individual consciousness -> collective consciousness

I have a hunch that the two extremes of the scale are one and the same i.e nothing and collective consciousness are the ether we are all just evolutionary expressions of this to some varying degree.

Interestingly time has the same duality; The best analogy I can think of is in maths no result can be 0 and infinity at the same time. But in reality the present is where the conscious window is eternally located. On the time line, the present = zero, the past = negative and the future = positive, both forming a circle stretching out to infinity. Zero is what is happening now but everything that has ever happened or will ever happen; always happens in the zero point, the present. So paradoxically then, the present like a singularity is  simultaneously zero and infinite at the same time.

In the same way I suspect the concepts of nothing and a singularity or collective consciousness co-exist and everything is merely unique expressions of this conscious ether in a space time dimension.

The illusion of time : past, present and future all exist together
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrqmMoI0wks

Another interesting insight is offered by Alan Steinfeld and Bruce Lipton that at a fundamental cellular level successful evolution is driven by a desire to explore symbiotic relationships this adds the element of empathy to the process that was not considered in the classical Darwinian Model.

A poignant excerpt from: Why Darwin is Wrong and Fractal Evolution by Alan Steinfeld

“By using the work of cellular biologist Bruce Lipton, former professor at Stanford University, I will show that the patterns of evolution are not created by chance.  They are based upon a fractal configuration of nature. Lipton and others, say that evolution is a two-step process going from the One to the Many.  This progresses in ongoing levels of development: from cell to multi-cellular organism and into social organizations.  

First Lipton defines evolution as “the gaining of greater awareness.  At the most fundamental physical level of a single cell we can see that awareness is defined by a protein like protuberance coming off the membrane called a receptor site. Receptors like sense organs are interfaces between the outer and inner environments.  They survey the environment and feed information back to the rest of the cell.  It lets the organism know that if something is harmful- move away from it; or if something is beneficial -move towards it. There is only one site for each stimulus in the environment and they can only exist in a single layer.  The more receptor sites the greater the awareness of the environment and the more survival is assured.  But there is a limit to the amount of receptor sites a cell can have, because if the membrane were to get too big it would rip open, the cytoplasm would pore out and the cell would die.”


http://www.newrealities.com/index.php/articles-on-new-sciences/item/299-why-darwin-is-wrong-and-fractal-evolution-by-alan-steinfeld
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
December 04, 2014, 12:45:28 AM
#87
I think you need laughter as a dimension.  Broaden the term, anything can be a dimension.

But if you want to stay with physics, stick with the "Standard model" and what it says about dimensions.

What? The Standard Model (of particle physics) says nothing about dimensions. That's where less-reductionist interpretations of QM come in, with superstring theories being by far the most advanced mathematical framework describing higher dimensions... but all under some silly assumptions about the nature of time.


A point is the "zero-th" dimension. It has nothing except existence... no size or anything else.

A straight line is the first dimension. It has an infinite number of points, but it could be a single point stretched out.

A plane is the second dimension. It is made up of any number of lines that are one point thick, but it could be a single point stretched out in two directions.

Space is the third dimension. It is any number (infinite) of planes sitting one on top of another. But it could be one point stretched out in 3 directions.

Time is the fourth dimension. It is variable occupancy of spacial objects (or points) in different areas or locations of space.

The fifth dimension has to do with the twisting of time so that any of the lower dimensions can occupy the same space at the same time.

That's as far as I go. The sixth dimension is beyond my simple thinking. Perhaps you can find a clear definition of it on the Net somewhere.

Smiley

EDIT: Let me add one other little piece of info. It is the 6th dimension and beyond that give substance to objects in space.
sr. member
Activity: 433
Merit: 260
December 02, 2014, 11:07:05 AM
#86
I think you need laughter as a dimension.  Broaden the term, anything can be a dimension.

But if you want to stay with physics, stick with the "Standard model" and what it says about dimensions.

What? The Standard Model (of particle physics) says nothing about dimensions. That's where less-reductionist interpretations of QM come in, with superstring theories being by far the most advanced mathematical framework describing higher dimensions... but all under some silly assumptions about the nature of time.
full member
Activity: 175
Merit: 100
Crypto Liberty
November 27, 2014, 08:25:44 AM
#85
this is an amazing subject. will we ever be able to perceive and understand truth?
there are more things in heaven and earth, my friends, than are dreamt of in your philosophy Wink
i suggest you follow this chat:

and also Bohm Consciousness Seminar
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
November 26, 2014, 09:37:39 PM
#84
I think that consciousness, when it is self-aware, is the only place in our universe where some semblance of pure randomness exists. When I say PURE randomness, I mean randomness. "Probability" and "random" as we generally use and understand them, don't really have anything to do with random. What they have to do with is our weakness, our inability to observe and record, except in a very, very small way, the multitudes of causes and effects going on in the world around us all the time.

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1386
November 24, 2014, 09:44:51 PM
#83
I think you really need consciousness as another dimension.

1. Space being one dimension (with the aspects of h, w, and l)
2. Tme being a second dimensions (again with its aspects of past, present, and future)
3. And consciousness being the third dimension. (with its aspects of awareness or not awareness)

Remove anyone of these three things and no experiment to prove the others can take place.

Bingo! Except that space is the 3rd dimension, and the 4th dimension is not "time" but is rather a way of accounting for change in the 3rd. All dimensions can be thought of this way. Consciousness (or light) is thus the 5th dimension, which is orthogonal to spacetime.

Imagining the Fifth Dimension

I think you need laughter as a dimension.  Broaden the term, anything can be a dimension.

But if you want to stay with physics, stick with the "Standard model" and what it says about dimensions.

Hey! One of my earliest post here. Thank you for the reminder.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/imagining-10-dimensions-the-movie-303271


legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
November 23, 2014, 05:33:33 PM
#82
I think you really need consciousness as another dimension.

1. Space being one dimension (with the aspects of h, w, and l)
2. Tme being a second dimensions (again with its aspects of past, present, and future)
3. And consciousness being the third dimension. (with its aspects of awareness or not awareness)

Remove anyone of these three things and no experiment to prove the others can take place.

Bingo! Except that space is the 3rd dimension, and the 4th dimension is not "time" but is rather a way of accounting for change in the 3rd. All dimensions can be thought of this way. Consciousness (or light) is thus the 5th dimension, which is orthogonal to spacetime.

Imagining the Fifth Dimension


Hey! One of my earliest post here. Thank you for the reminder.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/imagining-10-dimensions-the-movie-303271

legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
November 22, 2014, 11:50:20 AM
#81

Hence the thought experiment of which works better.  You can include any placebo effects you want and consider them a success.  It doesn't change the result.  700 years ago in Europe as I'm sure you are well aware, 1/3 of the population died of this disease despite trying all manner of religious and magical incantations, prayers, etc.  Today?  As long as you have access to a modern hospital it is easily cured, but you won't even get it in the first place because modern medicine did overnight what thousands of years of magic couldn't do and the disease has been virtually eradicated.  

Anyways, pleasure having this discussion with you, but I think we have both said pretty much all we can really say for our respective sides.  Cheers.

This isn't completely accurate. Many things might be cured by the science of modern medicine. Yet, one of the things that isn't cured is greed.

People, by nature, want to stave off death as long as possible. They look to modern medicine. Yet it isn't modern medicine that has the longest living people in the world.

As an example, modern medicine can cure malaria, although it is difficult. MMS, for less than pennies on the dollar, cures malaria in one day. Yet modern medicine won't even test it, although it is curing all kinds of diseases around the world. http://mmsnews.is/

Could it be that placebo effect in the greedy helps them overcome the greed disease just long enough for them to figure out how to make more money?

Smiley

I said I wouldn't comment anymore but since you could potentially kill someone I will chime in one last time.  No, drinking bleach will NOT cure malaria.  It has been studied (though really, common sense should answer this question for you) and does not in any way cure malaria except in the cases where it kills the patient.  The ONLY study ever done that indicated it was a cure for malaria was does by the person selling the stuff (and you have the balls to mention greed lol).  This is a prime example of what I mentioned earlier.  People like you start with the conclusion, and then any evidence that contradicts your conclusions are thrown out.  Obviously you won't get results that way (as evidenced by the complete failure of magic at curing disease) and this is why people like you hate the scientific method.  It isn't sufficient to simply declare something true, you have to be able to prove it, which is impossible when your entire premise is simply made up.  

Activated MMS is chlorine dioxide, a mild industrial bleach. It is often used in small quantities to disinfect water. This has been done for a hundred years or more. See what DuPont has to say at: http://www2.dupont.com/Chlorine_Dioxide_Solutions/en_US/index.html?src=gg_clo2_na_chlorine-dioxide-water-purification :

Quote
Chlorine Dioxide Solutions

DuPont™ Chlorine Dioxide is a safe and highly effective substitute for chlorine. Used by consumers for deodorization and disinfection purposes, and by the oil and gas industry for petrochemical applications, DuPont™ Chlorine Dioxide quickly kills a broad spectrum of organisms, purifying water and providing antibacterial properties. For over 60 years, DuPont has been providing innovative solutions in chlorine dioxide technologies and applications.

When you Google "chlorine dioxide" you will get all kinds of sites, most that have good things to say about it, and some that have bad things to say. As I said, MMS costs less than pennies on the dollar to buy when compared with modern medicine. Yet it does some things that modern medicine won't even touch. The interesting thing is that you can make it at home so inexpensively and easy, that any price for ingredients is virtually negligible.

Part of the point is that the guys who are promoting it aren't making any profit off it at all. They are working off donations. The charges that they have for seminars are to cover expenses.

I'm not going to go through lots of research stuff here. The little I have said is enough to get you off and researching if you want. There is one thing that I will mention, however. When you look up MMS in Wikipedia, the way it is explained is different than the way it is made and used. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone who wants to take the time to edit it. Someone has gone to a lot of trouble to edit MMS in Wikipedia so that it looks bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_dioxide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_Mineral_Supplement

Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
November 22, 2014, 09:26:31 AM
#80

Hence the thought experiment of which works better.  You can include any placebo effects you want and consider them a success.  It doesn't change the result.  700 years ago in Europe as I'm sure you are well aware, 1/3 of the population died of this disease despite trying all manner of religious and magical incantations, prayers, etc.  Today?  As long as you have access to a modern hospital it is easily cured, but you won't even get it in the first place because modern medicine did overnight what thousands of years of magic couldn't do and the disease has been virtually eradicated. 

Anyways, pleasure having this discussion with you, but I think we have both said pretty much all we can really say for our respective sides.  Cheers.

This isn't completely accurate. Many things might be cured by the science of modern medicine. Yet, one of the things that isn't cured is greed.

People, by nature, want to stave off death as long as possible. They look to modern medicine. Yet it isn't modern medicine that has the longest living people in the world.

As an example, modern medicine can cure malaria, although it is difficult. MMS, for less than pennies on the dollar, cures malaria in one day. Yet modern medicine won't even test it, although it is curing all kinds of diseases around the world. http://mmsnews.is/

Could it be that placebo effect in the greedy helps them overcome the greed disease just long enough for them to figure out how to make more money?

Smiley

I said I wouldn't comment anymore but since you could potentially kill someone I will chime in one last time.  No, drinking bleach will NOT cure malaria.  It has been studied (though really, common sense should answer this question for you) and does not in any way cure malaria except in the cases where it kills the patient.  The ONLY study ever done that indicated it was a cure for malaria was does by the person selling the stuff (and you have the balls to mention greed lol).  This is a prime example of what I mentioned earlier.  People like you start with the conclusion, and then any evidence that contradicts your conclusions are thrown out.  Obviously you won't get results that way (as evidenced by the complete failure of magic at curing disease) and this is why people like you hate the scientific method.  It isn't sufficient to simply declare something true, you have to be able to prove it, which is impossible when your entire premise is simply made up. 
sr. member
Activity: 433
Merit: 260
November 22, 2014, 08:32:33 AM
#79
I think you really need consciousness as another dimension.

1. Space being one dimension (with the aspects of h, w, and l)
2. Tme being a second dimensions (again with its aspects of past, present, and future)
3. And consciousness being the third dimension. (with its aspects of awareness or not awareness)

Remove anyone of these three things and no experiment to prove the others can take place.

Bingo! Except that space is the 3rd dimension, and the 4th dimension is not "time" but is rather a way of accounting for change in the 3rd. All dimensions can be thought of this way. Consciousness (or light) is thus the 5th dimension, which is orthogonal to spacetime.

Imagining the Fifth Dimension
member
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
November 21, 2014, 11:48:52 PM
#78
I think you really need consciousness as another dimension.

1. Space being one dimension (with the aspects of h, w, and l)
2. Tme being a second dimensions (again with its aspects of past, present, and future)
3. And consciousness being the third dimension. (with its aspects of awareness or not awareness)

Remove anyone of these three things and no experiment to prove the others can take place.  

For all you really know and can prove, the whole universe turns into waves while you sleep and the moment you wake it reconstitutes to particles.  
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001
minds.com/Wilikon
November 21, 2014, 01:05:15 PM
#77

Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion: Why Materialism is not the Answer

Published on Jun 13, 2014
Since 1981, Dr. Rupert Sheldrake has been researching morphic fields - his hypothesis about form-giving, immaterial fields which serve as a kind of blueprint for creation. Although he succeeded to find more and more evidence supporting his case, his hypothesis has been mainly rejected by the mainstream scientific community. In his lecture "The Science Delusion", Sheldrake points out several scientific dogmas which prevent science from overcoming its materialistic world view...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR1SLQwHDog

See what happens to any science professional that abandons standard science rhetoric? The scientific community cuts them off. Note Rupert Sheldrake in this TED Talk video that has been removed from TED Talks for being against modern science. He can't even afford shoes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

Smiley

Banned from TED. The Streisand effect is in full force now...




legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
November 21, 2014, 12:27:04 PM
#76

Hence the thought experiment of which works better.  You can include any placebo effects you want and consider them a success.  It doesn't change the result.  700 years ago in Europe as I'm sure you are well aware, 1/3 of the population died of this disease despite trying all manner of religious and magical incantations, prayers, etc.  Today?  As long as you have access to a modern hospital it is easily cured, but you won't even get it in the first place because modern medicine did overnight what thousands of years of magic couldn't do and the disease has been virtually eradicated. 

Anyways, pleasure having this discussion with you, but I think we have both said pretty much all we can really say for our respective sides.  Cheers.

This isn't completely accurate. Many things might be cured by the science of modern medicine. Yet, one of the things that isn't cured is greed.

People, by nature, want to stave off death as long as possible. They look to modern medicine. Yet it isn't modern medicine that has the longest living people in the world.

As an example, modern medicine can cure malaria, although it is difficult. MMS, for less than pennies on the dollar, cures malaria in one day. Yet modern medicine won't even test it, although it is curing all kinds of diseases around the world. http://mmsnews.is/

Could it be that placebo effect in the greedy helps them overcome the greed disease just long enough for them to figure out how to make more money?

Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
November 21, 2014, 12:13:26 PM
#75

Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion: Why Materialism is not the Answer

Published on Jun 13, 2014
Since 1981, Dr. Rupert Sheldrake has been researching morphic fields - his hypothesis about form-giving, immaterial fields which serve as a kind of blueprint for creation. Although he succeeded to find more and more evidence supporting his case, his hypothesis has been mainly rejected by the mainstream scientific community. In his lecture "The Science Delusion", Sheldrake points out several scientific dogmas which prevent science from overcoming its materialistic world view...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR1SLQwHDog

See what happens to any science professional that abandons standard science rhetoric? The scientific community cuts them off. Note Rupert Sheldrake in this TED Talk video that has been removed from TED Talks for being against modern science. He can't even afford shoes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 433
Merit: 260
November 21, 2014, 09:43:51 AM
#74
“Random”‐ness is known only to ignorance.

Was about to reply to your apple comment, but I don't quite know what you mean by this.

Are you saying that things only appear random while we are ignorant of their cause? eg. Apples appear to fall at random time intervals to the ignorant, however when we find the causes of the falling apples (wind/deterioration of the stalk/increasing weight/gravity etc.) then what once appeared random now becomes predictable and a pattern can be made?

I agree with this, however many quantum effects are truly random, which is very rare in nature. So (according to current quantum theory) we can never predict these effects with certainty, just with various probabilities.

How do we know that quantum effects are truly random? Space is the 3rd dimension. Time is the 4th. Whatever the 5th is like, we can calculate, but it takes all kinds of mental tricks to hold it in the mind and understand it. 6th? 7th? 8th? How many dimensions are there? Might they even be infinite?

I would suggest that quantum is causal just like everything else. It's just that the causes lie in dimensions where we don't have any practical way of even suggesting, much less determining, what the causes are like, to say nothing of what they might be.

On the other hand, there might be a dimension where cause and effect, and randomness meet, where the come together, where they are the same thing, right?

Smiley

-there's the placebo effect, which you seem to have failed to observe. Frustratingly, even the most bizarre rituals have had documented effects, rather than no effect. Hence, "placebo effects" where various unknown effects are lumped together and ignored.

I think you guys are onto something... What do you think of this:

Imagining the Fifth Dimension
Imagining the Sixth Dimension
Placebos Becoming More Effective?
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
November 21, 2014, 07:45:40 AM
#73
Circular argument: "methodical research is superior to alternatives because its results turned out to be superior".
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

Well it isn't circular reasoning at all.  Having superior results (which you don't dispute) is the proof of having a superior methodology.  What else are we measuring here but results?  One way of doing things works substantially better then the other.   If you didn't want results you wouldn't go to either a doctor OR a witch doctor you would just let yourself die of plague.  If you would prefer, I will concede the point and instead of labeling one way better than the other, I will simply state that the scientific method produces vastly superior results. 

I've got a couple of problems with that:
-it deifies the Method and shuts down logical thinking (let us all bow down to the Great Book of Scientific Method! Wink )
It deifies nothing.  That is a label YOU supplied, I suspect because you simply don't like the method (though I hesitate to assume).  Nor does it shut down logical thinking (how would you even define such a thing even if it did?).  It is in fact derived from the same process.  Start with nothing, and simply observe and let the conclusion follow. 
I strongly suspect what is happening here is that you simply don't like it, but can't actually come up with a rational reason why and hence we've resorted to this.


-there's the placebo effect, which you seem to have failed to observe. Frustratingly, even the most bizarre rituals have had documented effects, rather than no effect. Hence, "placebo effects" where various unknown effects are lumped together and ignored.

Hence the thought experiment of which works better.  You can include any placebo effects you want and consider them a success.  It doesn't change the result.  700 years ago in Europe as I'm sure you are well aware, 1/3 of the population died of this disease despite trying all manner of religious and magical incantations, prayers, etc.  Today?  As long as you have access to a modern hospital it is easily cured, but you won't even get it in the first place because modern medicine did overnight what thousands of years of magic couldn't do and the disease has been virtually eradicated. 

Anyways, pleasure having this discussion with you, but I think we have both said pretty much all we can really say for our respective sides.  Cheers.
hero member
Activity: 775
Merit: 1000
November 21, 2014, 06:58:53 AM
#72
Herein exists a problem. Ancient as well as modern day witch-doctors write and speak their incantations as they dance around the fire. They believe the things that they are doing, even though their success isn't 100%. Anybody who wants to take the time can learn the incantations and the rites.

Scientists write and speak their math symbols as they hover over their computers. They believe the things that they are doing, even though their success isn't 100%. Anybody who wants to take the time can learn the math and the ways to use it.

When math and science start to get into the quantum entanglement of the conscious mind, science will of a truth be dabbling in the "black arts."

Smiley

Well, not really.   If you were to contract say, bubonic plague, you would find that modern medicine would cure you rather quickly.  If you were to use voodoo magic instead, you would find that your survival rate is about the same as it would be if you did nothing.  See the difference?

Let me put it in another way.  Say you contracted bubonic plague.  Would you rather be located in say, Mass General in Boston attended to by physicians using modern medicine gleaned from the scientific method, or some village in India where a "modern day witch-doctor" performed some traditional incantation?  Don't answer, it's rhetorical and we all know the answer. 


Circular argument: "methodical research is superior to alternatives because its results turned out to be superior".
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

I've got a couple of problems with that:
-it deifies the Method and shuts down logical thinking (let us all bow down to the Great Book of Scientific Method! Wink )

-there's the placebo effect, which you seem to have failed to observe. Frustratingly, even the most bizarre rituals have had documented effects, rather than no effect. Hence, "placebo effects" where various unknown effects are lumped together and ignored.
Pages:
Jump to: